The 'Bestiary': The Burgess Shale

[Hollie]

Is this an intelligent design, creation thread?

Nope. This is thread number 7 or 8 where PC cuts and pastes phony, edited, parsed and out of context "quotes", mined from Harun Yahya.

And you still have been unable to answer the premise.


My poor sad friend, the question at hand requires more than you are capable of. I was hoping that someone more...astute...than you would grapple with the facts than need be explained. But thank you for coming by.

Well actually, the same goofy "quotes" you cut and pasted in this thread are the same goofy "quotes" I exposed as fraudulent in the last three threads you opened.

Thanks again for announcing you are a fraud.

Now, back to Harun Yahya you go. Scoot, scoot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nope. This is thread number 7 or 8 where PC cuts and pastes phony, edited, parsed and out of context "quotes", mined from Harun Yahya.

And you still have been unable to answer the premise.


My poor sad friend, the question at hand requires more than you are capable of. I was hoping that someone more...astute...than you would grapple with the facts than need be explained. But thank you for coming by.

Well actually, the same goofy "quotes" you cut and pasted in this thread are the same goofy "quotes" I exposed as fraudulent in the last three threads you opened.

Thanks again for announcing you are a fraud.

Now, back to Harun Yahya you go. Scoot, scoot.

See....that's why you've been dismissed.

You haven't shown any of the support in the OP to be either 'goofy' nor 'fraudulent.'
On the other hand, you have regularly been shown to be both.

You never address the premise, and, while I try to entertain the lesser among us, that would be you, you've outlived your usefulness.


So.....unless you'd actually like to meet the facts established in the OP....

....be gone.

 

[Alfalfa]

The "Cambrian explosion" wasn't an explosion in life, it was an explosion in fossils and the modern fossil record. The Cambrian period was typified by a Darwinian, evolutionary change from soft shelled mollusks to hard shell. The thick, hard shells more easily absorbed the minerals necessary for a long lasting fossil, consequently, the Cambrian period of earth history has significantly more fossils in the record to be dug up, viewed and analyzed by modern humans.

Mystery solved.

 

[Hollie]

And you still have been unable to answer the premise.


My poor sad friend, the question at hand requires more than you are capable of. I was hoping that someone more...astute...than you would grapple with the facts than need be explained. But thank you for coming by.

Well actually, the same goofy "quotes" you cut and pasted in this thread are the same goofy "quotes" I exposed as fraudulent in the last three threads you opened.

Thanks again for announcing you are a fraud.

Now, back to Harun Yahya you go. Scoot, scoot.

See....that's why you've been dismissed.

You haven't shown any of the support in the OP to be either 'goofy' nor 'fraudulent.'
On the other hand, you have regularly been shown to be both.

You never address the premise, and, while I try to entertain the lesser among us, that would be you, you've outlived your usefulness.


So.....unless you'd actually like to meet the facts established in the OP....

....be gone.

I can understand you're embarrassed that someone would point out that you do nothing more than cut and paste the same phony, edited, parsed and fraudulent "quotes" you mine from Harun Yahya.

Why spit and snarl at me? Your dishonesty and failings are of your own manufacture.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well actually, the same goofy "quotes" you cut and pasted in this thread are the same goofy "quotes" I exposed as fraudulent in the last three threads you opened.

Thanks again for announcing you are a fraud.

Now, back to Harun Yahya you go. Scoot, scoot.

See....that's why you've been dismissed.

You haven't shown any of the support in the OP to be either 'goofy' nor 'fraudulent.'
On the other hand, you have regularly been shown to be both.

You never address the premise, and, while I try to entertain the lesser among us, that would be you, you've outlived your usefulness.


So.....unless you'd actually like to meet the facts established in the OP....

....be gone.

I can understand you're embarrassed that someone would point out that you do nothing more than cut and paste the same phony, edited, parsed and fraudulent "quotes" you mine from Harun Yahya.

Why spit and snarl at me? Your dishonesty and failings are of your own manufacture.

"...phony, edited, parsed and fraudulent "quotes"..."

If any are as you suggest, you should be able to show same.

As you cannot, it is you who are "phony and fraudulent. "



Can't you follow a simple instruction?

Either rebut the facts in the OP, or be gone.


Your inability to do so merely proves the truth of the OP.



I'm trying to help you out....
...which way did you come in?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The "Cambrian explosion" wasn't an explosion in life, it was an explosion in fossils and the modern fossil record. The Cambrian period was typified by a Darwinian, evolutionary change from soft shelled mollusks to hard shell. The thick, hard shells more easily absorbed the minerals necessary for a long lasting fossil, consequently, the Cambrian period of earth history has significantly more fossils in the record to be dug up, viewed and analyzed by modern humans.

Mystery solved.

Wrong.

"The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the 1840s,[8] and in 1859 Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[9] The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere,..."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Exactly as I stated.


Again:

"... in 1859 Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection..."

 

[Hollie]

See....that's why you've been dismissed.

You haven't shown any of the support in the OP to be either 'goofy' nor 'fraudulent.'
On the other hand, you have regularly been shown to be both.

You never address the premise, and, while I try to entertain the lesser among us, that would be you, you've outlived your usefulness.


So.....unless you'd actually like to meet the facts established in the OP....

....be gone.

I can understand you're embarrassed that someone would point out that you do nothing more than cut and paste the same phony, edited, parsed and fraudulent "quotes" you mine from Harun Yahya.

Why spit and snarl at me? Your dishonesty and failings are of your own manufacture.

"...phony, edited, parsed and fraudulent "quotes"..."

If any are as you suggest, you should be able to show same.

As you cannot, it is you who are "phony and fraudulent. "



Can't you follow a simple instruction?

Either rebut the facts in the OP, or be gone.


Your inability to do so merely proves the truth of the OP.



I'm trying to help you out....
...which way did you come in?

It's a simple matter to review the threads in this forum that contain the same phony "quotes" I addressed earlier.

Why don't you provide links to a few of those threads?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I can understand you're embarrassed that someone would point out that you do nothing more than cut and paste the same phony, edited, parsed and fraudulent "quotes" you mine from Harun Yahya.

Why spit and snarl at me? Your dishonesty and failings are of your own manufacture.

"...phony, edited, parsed and fraudulent "quotes"..."

If any are as you suggest, you should be able to show same.

As you cannot, it is you who are "phony and fraudulent. "



Can't you follow a simple instruction?

Either rebut the facts in the OP, or be gone.


Your inability to do so merely proves the truth of the OP.



I'm trying to help you out....
...which way did you come in?

It's a simple matter to review the threads in this forum that contain the same phony "quotes" I addressed earlier.

Why don't you provide links to a few of those threads?

Hey....how about this one?

So, you believe Darwin's theory of evolution?

With the exception of the fanatics, and anti-religion zealots, it is actually fairly simple to prove to other folks that the theory isn't true....or at least can't be more than fractionally true.

First, 'evolving' suggests changing, in this case from the simple to the more advanced and complex organism. Outside of the kind of simple faith of peasants, science requires physical proof...in this sphere, that of the fossil record.
Evolution theory, sadly, falls short in that respect.


Did you catch the reference to you...'fanatics, and anti-religion zealots,...'?


Now then, how about explaining the sudden appearance of the organisms mentioned in the OP?


Can't?


OK....see ya'

 

[Alfalfa]

Discussing evolution with a saved and devout xtian is like discussing quantum mechanics with a precocious child.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Discussing evolution with a saved and devout xtian is like discussing quantum mechanics with a precocious child.

So...your point is that you are one of those anti-religion fanatics?

And that is your excuse for having no answers to the facts......facts.....that I provided?

You pretended the ability to discuss an issue of science....and now run off with your tail between your legs actually believing that you can blame your failure on some imagined aspect of my philosophy.



Just think of the time and embarrassment you could have saved yourself if you had considered that you really know very little about the subject.....

....and realized that the argument that you attempted to advance would fail before it started, instead of starting before it failed.



Right now you’re probably trying to brush something off your face…you didn’t realize it was the floor.

Dunce.

 

[Alfalfa]

I've answered your questions but like a precocious child, you ignore them and conclude you are winning.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've answered your questions but like a precocious child, you ignore them and conclude you are winning.

You're a liar.

Step off.

 

[dblack]

Is this an intelligent design, creation thread?

This should be in the religion section.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is this an intelligent design, creation thread?

This should be in the religion section.

No, it shouldn't.



The OP is about the scientific proof provided by geology.
It simply proves that numerous organism appear in the fossil record fully formed and far different than anything found before.

For some reason, many of those who are enamored of Darwinian evolution have no way to account for these facts......and they are facts.....and so attempt to claim that simply providing the fossil evidence is somehow "religion," as in

"This should be in the religion section."



Fossils are actual science, as opposed to Darwin's musings.


Don't be afraid to confront the truth.

 

[dblack]

Is this an intelligent design, creation thread?

This should be in the religion section.

No, it shouldn't.



The OP is about the scientific proof provided by geology.
It simply proves that numerous organism appear in the fossil record fully formed and far different than anything found before.

For some reason, many of those who are enamored of Darwinian evolution have no way to account for these facts......and they are facts.....and so attempt to claim that simply providing the fossil evidence is somehow "religion," as in

"This should be in the religion section."



Fossils are actual science, as opposed to Darwin's musings.


Don't be afraid to confront the truth.

Not afraid, just weary. I used to read up on all the evolution denial stuff - and it always fell apart under examination. Regardless of your views on the origin of life, it does evolve - it's simply by-product of genetic reproduction.

 

[peach174]

It does no such thing. The Cambrian period alone was over 50 million years long and the pre-cambrian, where many of these species evolved, was over 100 million.

You need to stop getting your info from the discovery institute.

My information, as always, is accurate and correct.

1. Darwin's theory requires gradual changes built on organisms that already exist.

2. The 'Cambrian explosion' provides fossil proof of organisms that are totally different than those existing previously.

3. You, clearly, have no understanding of either of the above.

Notice the links provided do not include "the discovery institute."



Of course, you can try to dispute the two examples that I give in the OP.....

...if you dare.

The premise of your argument is there wasn't enough time for these species to develop and evolve. One can only accept that if one believes 150-250 million years is a "short period of time".

For Humans the time span is way too short.
In less than 4 million years the hominid brain grew 3 times the size it that had taken 60 million years of primate evolution.

Between 2 million and 700,000 years the size of Homo erectus doubled.
Between 500,000 to 100,00 it had tripled in Homo sapiens.

Way too short of a time span for it to be evolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This should be in the religion section.

No, it shouldn't.



The OP is about the scientific proof provided by geology.
It simply proves that numerous organism appear in the fossil record fully formed and far different than anything found before.

For some reason, many of those who are enamored of Darwinian evolution have no way to account for these facts......and they are facts.....and so attempt to claim that simply providing the fossil evidence is somehow "religion," as in

"This should be in the religion section."



Fossils are actual science, as opposed to Darwin's musings.


Don't be afraid to confront the truth.

Not afraid, just weary. I used to read up on all the evolution denial stuff - and it always fell apart under examination. Regardless of your views on the origin of life, it does evolve - it's simply by-product of genetic reproduction.

Your opinion may belong in 'religion,' as it is based on no more than faith.

The fossil evidence that I've linked to is a fact.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My information, as always, is accurate and correct.

1. Darwin's theory requires gradual changes built on organisms that already exist.

2. The 'Cambrian explosion' provides fossil proof of organisms that are totally different than those existing previously.

3. You, clearly, have no understanding of either of the above.

Notice the links provided do not include "the discovery institute."



Of course, you can try to dispute the two examples that I give in the OP.....

...if you dare.

The premise of your argument is there wasn't enough time for these species to develop and evolve. One can only accept that if one believes 150-250 million years is a "short period of time".

For Humans the time span is way too short.
In less than 4 million years the hominid brain grew 3 times the size it that had taken 60 million years of primate evolution.

Between 2 million and 700,000 years the size of Homo erectus doubled.
Between 500,000 to 100,00 it had tripled in Homo sapiens.

Way too short of a time span for it to be evolution.

In addition to the time frame, I'd like to add this aspect: the human brain, suddenly, performs in a way no other brain does.


Scientists know that the human brain delivers far more ‘performance’ for its weight than any other species’ brain.

Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)

 

[Alfalfa]

My information, as always, is accurate and correct.

1. Darwin's theory requires gradual changes built on organisms that already exist.

2. The 'Cambrian explosion' provides fossil proof of organisms that are totally different than those existing previously.

3. You, clearly, have no understanding of either of the above.

Notice the links provided do not include "the discovery institute."



Of course, you can try to dispute the two examples that I give in the OP.....

...if you dare.

The premise of your argument is there wasn't enough time for these species to develop and evolve. One can only accept that if one believes 150-250 million years is a "short period of time".

For Humans the time span is way too short.
In less than 4 million years the hominid brain grew 3 times the size it that had taken 60 million years of primate evolution.

Between 2 million and 700,000 years the size of Homo erectus doubled.
Between 500,000 to 100,00 it had tripled in Homo sapiens.

Way too short of a time span for it to be evolution.

You provide no scientific evidence or proof the increase in brain size was anything more than evolution other than saying it's impossible. All you present is an opinion.

I say it is possible and my evidence is that it happened.

 

[peach174]

The premise of your argument is there wasn't enough time for these species to develop and evolve. One can only accept that if one believes 150-250 million years is a "short period of time".

For Humans the time span is way too short.
In less than 4 million years the hominid brain grew 3 times the size it that had taken 60 million years of primate evolution.

Between 2 million and 700,000 years the size of Homo erectus doubled.
Between 500,000 to 100,00 it had tripled in Homo sapiens.

Way too short of a time span for it to be evolution.

You provide no scientific evidence or proof the increase in brain size was anything more than evolution other than saying it's impossible. All you present is an opinion.

I say it is possible and my evidence is that it happened.

I stated scientific fact.
Scientists are still doing studies to explain why, in such a short period of time.

The human brain, with its unequaled cognitive capacity, evolved rapidly and dramatically.
"We wanted to know why," says James Sikela, PhD, who headed the international research team that included researchers from the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine and the National Institutes of Mental Health. "The size and cognitive capacity of the human brain sets us apart. But how did that happen?"

Evolutionary increase in size of the human brain explained: Part of a protein linked to rapid change in cognitive ability